GFX100S vs SL2/X1D

[Succisa75]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Odd - I have never thought of the Q as 'saving' Leica - and we're all guessing in this regard. I saw the T as saving Leica, despite its current languishing position, because it introduced the L-mount, which even then was obviously full-frame-capable. Certainly the Q appears to have been successful, but the L-mount has enabled not just the SL, but the CL, L-mount alliance and all the Leica L-mount lenses.

T started the L mount, but it wasn't a huge hit like the Q was.  Even to this day the Q2 now  has a wait list in certain stores, while the TL2 and CL are widely available without a lot of fanfare.  unfortunate as the lenses are really impressive, but the pricing of the TL2 and CL are a tough pill to swallow for some especially with Fujifilm's dominance with the APS-C format. 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Succisa75]

8 minutes ago, aksclix said:

Yea the Leica T was a turning point for sure! 

Coming to think of the title of this topic though, I am not sure I like the GFX 100s pricing.. everybody is going to wind up with one it looks like..  preorders have already gone ahead of their expectations. 

in certain markets they are offering big discounts if you purchase one or even two GF lenses with the body. They are going after the high end full frame market for sure. 

[Herr Barnack]

On 1/28/2021 at 1:26 AM, setuporg said:

Folks -- with the GFX100S announced today, that costs exactly as much as the SL2, and the 80mm/f1.7 lens, do you think we'll see domination by Fuji of both the FF segment and the MF one?

100 mp is woefully inadequate.  I'm holding out for the Fuji GFX One Billion S.

[BernardC]

23 hours ago, aksclix said:

am sure there are a lot of DSLRs still, not everyone is going to upgrade if they're happy with what they have and it still earns them money! Many like the OVFs over EVFs too..

It's not just a matter of "like". For many sports scenarios (and arguably portraits), an OVF is a necessity.

Taking a picture at the right moment is a skill that needs to be practiced. To me the most obvious analogy is batting (choose baseball or cricket as your sport, depending where you live!). You need to make-up your mind about tripping the shutter, or swinging the bat, around the moment that the ball leaves the pitcher's hand. With an EVF, the ball is already past you by the time you see it. That's why Nikon and Canon still release professional SLRs. The workaround, of course, is to shoot bursts at 20+fps and hope you get a good picture.

I find that the same thing happens with portraits. I get a much higher number of blinks and "just missed it" shots with mirrorless.

None of this is of much concern for the average advanced amateur, but it's critically important within its own niche. I can certainly see a day when SLRs only sell to professionals (and those who want professional-style equipment). Let's not forget as well that there are very few well-paid professional sports shooters left. They will get squeezed-out of the market eventually. Even in the glory days of press photography, Nikon and Canon sold 90%+ of their "pro" cameras to amateurs.

[aksclix]

19 minutes ago, BernardC said:

It's not just a matter of "like". For many sports scenarios (and arguably portraits), an OVF is a necessity.

Taking a picture at the right moment is a skill that needs to be practiced. To me the most obvious analogy is batting (choose baseball or cricket as your sport, depending where you live!). You need to make-up your mind about tripping the shutter, or swinging the bat, around the moment that the ball leaves the pitcher's hand. With an EVF, the ball is already past you by the time you see it. That's why Nikon and Canon still release professional SLRs. The workaround, of course, is to shoot bursts at 20+fps and hope you get a good picture.

I find that the same thing happens with portraits. I get a much higher number of blinks and "just missed it" shots with mirrorless.

None of this is of much concern for the average advanced amateur, but it's critically important within its own niche. I can certainly see a day when SLRs only sell to professionals (and those who want professional-style equipment). Let's not forget as well that there are very few well-paid professional sports shooters left. They will get squeezed-out of the market eventually. Even in the glory days of press photography, Nikon and Canon sold 90%+ of their "pro" cameras to amateurs.

It’s not a necessity when the camera promises incredible AF tech with huge buffer size and almost zero blackouts. Are you even aware of Sony a9’s hit rate? Even the most talented photographer couldn’t get 10 on 10 in focus with insufficient AF tracking help.. even with 20fps in a9 the photographer needs to be talented enough.. and, there are several photographers at any pro sports event. I know they do not have 100% keepers from what they shoot.. I would be surprised if it’s even over 25%.. burst rate is way more important than anything else.. at 20fps even if you miss some you should have perfect captures.. 

[Jeff S]

3 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Odd - I have never thought of the Q as 'saving' Leica - and we're all guessing in this regard. I saw the T as saving Leica, despite its current languishing position, because it introduced the L-mount, which even then was obviously full-frame-capable. Certainly the Q appears to have been successful, but the L-mount has enabled not just the SL, but the CL, L-mount alliance and all the Leica L-mount lenses.

Indeed we are all just guessing. The two relatively recent cameras that seem to have attracted buyers outside the typical Leica universe were the M9 and the Q.  I of course have no data to support that belief, but I do recall some Leica exec (can’t remember source) saying that the Q resulted in 10x expected demand.  It was a great success in that regard, but begs the question about absolute sales numbers, let alone profits.  I don’t get the feeling that the SL line has created the same interest, but again no data.  Stories about Panasonic’s struggles with L mount product sales, however, give me concern, as they remain a key partner.  As an SL2 owner, I can only hope for another good story.

Jeff

[LD_50]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 minutes ago, aksclix said:

It’s not a necessity when the camera promises incredible AF tech with huge buffer size and almost zero blackouts. Are you even aware of Sony a9’s hit rate? Even the most talented photographer couldn’t get 10 on 10 in focus with insufficient AF tracking help.. even with 20fps in a9 the photographer needs to be talented enough.. and, there are several photographers at any pro sports event. I know they do not have 100% keepers from what they shoot.. I would be surprised if it’s even over 25%.. burst rate is way more important than anything else.. at 20fps even if you miss some you should have perfect captures.. 

I used to shoot a D4 and D4s, Nikon’s sports cameras at the time. High burst rate and fast AF was helpful but the optical viewfinder was of greater importance.
 

EVFs are maybe getting to where they can compete with OVFs now but to this point OVFs still offer advantages in lag and noise free operation and in high contrast situations where the EVF DR is too limited. I haven’t shot the Sony a1 obviously but it looks like it may be the first EVF to begin to approach OVF quality for sports/action. 
 

Shooting video (20+ fps) allows you to simply grab the photo from the stream but that’s a different experience than photography. It’s likely where professional sports photography ends up but most people buying these cameras are not professionals and don’t need to sacrifice the experience of photography for the success rate of video. I know I’m not interested in doing so. 

[aksclix]

3 minutes ago, LD_50 said:

I used to shoot a D4 and D4s, Nikon’s sports cameras at the time. High burst rate and fast AF was helpful but the optical viewfinder was of greater importance.
 

EVFs are maybe getting to where they can compete with OVFs now but to this point OVFs still offer advantages in lag and noise free operation and in high contrast situations where the EVF DR is too limited. I haven’t shot the Sony a1 obviously but it looks like it may be the first EVF to begin to approach OVF quality for sports/action. 
 

Shooting video (20+ fps) allows you to simply grab the photo from the stream but that’s a different experience than photography. It’s likely where professional sports photography ends up but most people buying these cameras are not professionals and don’t need to sacrifice the experience of photography for the success rate of video. I know I’m not interested in doing so. 

I used to own a D4s as well and I am not saying the OVF has no advantages.. I too dig the “always on” value of the OVFs.. if OVF is more important then why don’t we try shooting sports with Leica S? It’s got the best OVF ever and has a burst rate of what 2fps? The D4 boasts an incredible 11fps if my memory is right and without that you’ll get nowhere with your sports photography. 
 

it’s not true that professionals don’t buy mirrorless.. things changed with the A9.. it’s only getting better by the year.. anyway, we will see if somebody has any data to support any side of the argument.. I’ll try to find some when I get some time 😌

[aksclix]

Let me make one thing clear though.. I am not against OVF here.. I like it better BUT it’s a trade off I was willing to make for smaller size and other tech.. if the a9 and d4s had the same stuff inside with only the viewfinders being different, I would choose the OVF with D4s over the a9.. I like the view from the OVF better too.. but again if the EVF is as good as it’s in SL2.. then what is the issue? It’s just gorgeous 

[aksclix]

And I guess it definitely makes sense for sports photographers on the fence all day long shooting with a tripod to have the OVF and bigger bodies.. I agree it makes more practical sense where weight isn’t a concern and OVF certainly has more advantages there.. let’s see if they make more flagship DSLRs like the 1Dx or the D6.. unlikely but still possible if enough pros demand for it and the manufacturers see some ROI

[beewee]

56 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

I of course have no data to support that belief, but I do recall some Leica exec (can’t remember source) saying that the Q resulted in 10x expected demand.

Original plan was to build 1000 units based on a Peter Karbe’s comment made about the 28mm lens design for the Q. So 10x forecast would be around 10,000 units.

I don’t have exact figures but I recall in peak M9 production days, they were making in the area of 20,000 cameras a year. For M10, I’ve heard it was somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 cameras per year.

[BernardC]

1 hour ago, aksclix said:

if OVF is more important then why don’t we try shooting sports with Leica S? It’s got the best OVF ever and has a burst rate of what 2fps?

It should go without saying, that's not the S's market. It has a great viewfinder, but it is relatively slow (although still the fastest bigger-than-full-frame camera this side of a Red). It's also expensive compared to a 1Dx, and doesn't offer any long lenses.

For high-end portraiture and fashion however, the S excels. That is the target market.

[LD_50]

1 hour ago, aksclix said:

I used to own a D4s as well and I am not saying the OVF has no advantages.. I too dig the “always on” value of the OVFs.. if OVF is more important then why don’t we try shooting sports with Leica S? It’s got the best OVF ever and has a burst rate of what 2fps? The D4 boasts an incredible 11fps if my memory is right and without that you’ll get nowhere with your sports photography. 
 

it’s not true that professionals don’t buy mirrorless.. things changed with the A9.. it’s only getting better by the year.. anyway, we will see if somebody has any data to support any side of the argument.. I’ll try to find some when I get some time 😌

Leica S is no good for sports because AFs is too slow, AFc is too slow, burst rate is too slow, mirror blackout is too long. It offers almost nothing that a D4s does for professional sports/action type of work. The D4s (and the other D# cameras before and after) are built specifically for this purpose. So far we have not yet seen a mirrorless camera that goes after this niche. I suspect Canon will be first, followed by Nikon, and possibly Sony. 

Obviously Leica S has a great OVF but for the type of work it’s best for, I think it’s a very small market that wants an OVF. Add an EVF and it would be a much more useful camera because of all the EVF advantages for its type of shooting. Price, rental, and service plans are the other big limiting factors for professional adoption. 

I did not say that professionals (assuming you meant sports professionals) don’t buy mirrorless. It’s clearly headed that way. I specifically mentioned the convergence of video and sports photography. As a non-professional I don’t see any reason to move to grabbing stills from video. The advantages of doing this (easily getting the shot, nearly unlimited choices of shots) are outweighed by the fact I don’t enjoy the process at all. 

Edited February 17, 2021 by LD_50

[aksclix]

5 minutes ago, BernardC said:

It should go without saying, that's not the S's market. It has a great viewfinder, but it is relatively slow (although still the fastest bigger-than-full-frame camera this side of a Red). It's also expensive compared to a 1Dx, and doesn't offer any long lenses.

For high-end portraiture and fashion however, the S excels. That is the target market.

Hey, I wasn’t seriously suggesting the s for sports.. it was a sarcastic statement 

anyway, the OVF v EVF has been beaten to death already.. it’s just a matter of preference (even with pros) I wouldn’t say that only pros like OVFs.. what makes a pro is a totally different debate and I don’t even want to go there.. it’s all very subjective and wouldn’t lead to anywhere 

Edited February 17, 2021 by aksclix

[Stuart Richardson]

I am pretty surprised to hear the Q has been so successful. I have never seen one in the wild, and never seen anyone talk about one outside the Leica forum. It is also the only Leica in which I have nearly zero interest, as it seems like either like an over large and too wide compact camera or a hobbled SL/SL2. Again, that is for me, I know people here love them, but as a huge Leica fan, I wish they made the X100 series...they should own that market (very compact camera with a true viewfinder, good fixed lens and classic interface). The q is neither here nor there...too wide a lens for general use, too big a body for portability and carrying along all the time. I have a hard time seeing how they outsell the M cameras, which have always been Leica's most popular and recognizable product...is it just that they are cheaper?

 

[Simone_DF]

29 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I am pretty surprised to hear the Q has been so successful. I have never seen one in the wild, and never seen anyone talk about one outside the Leica forum. It is also the only Leica in which I have nearly zero interest, as it seems like either like an over large and too wide compact camera or a hobbled SL/SL2. Again, that is for me, I know people here love them, but as a huge Leica fan, I wish they made the X100 series...they should own that market (very compact camera with a true viewfinder, good fixed lens and classic interface). The q is neither here nor there...too wide a lens for general use, too big a body for portability and carrying along all the time. I have a hard time seeing how they outsell the M cameras, which have always been Leica's most popular and recognizable product...is it just that they are cheaper?

 

I had exactly the opposite experience. Before covid, I bumped quite a few times into people with a Q. Some of them were amateurs and the Q was their only camera (not including mobiles). 

I've also seen a few Ms in the wild, both film and digital. Never seen a SL.

The success of the Q vs the M is that they are half the price of a M + 28mm lens and have AF. Not everybody is interested in rangefinders.

[Succisa75]

3 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

The success of the Q vs the M is that they are half the price of a M + 28mm lens and have AF. Not everybody is interested in rangefinders.

This is the appeal of the Q.  Purists like the rangefinder, but many people that buy a camera also want their photo taken with their camera. Good luck finding someone on the streets, restaurant or wherever that knows how to use a M camera to snap photos of you and your loved one 😂 

Price was also a big factor and of course the compact size, big screen and EVF  

 

[Succisa75]

4 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I am pretty surprised to hear the Q has been so successful. I have never seen one in the wild, and never seen anyone talk about one outside the Leica forum. It is also the only Leica in which I have nearly zero interest, as it seems like either like an over large and too wide compact camera or a hobbled SL/SL2. Again, that is for me, I know people here love them, but as a huge Leica fan, I wish they made the X100 series...they should own that market (very compact camera with a true viewfinder, good fixed lens and classic interface). The q is neither here nor there...too wide a lens for general use, too big a body for portability and carrying along all the time. I have a hard time seeing how they outsell the M cameras, which have always been Leica's most popular and recognizable product...is it just that they are cheaper?

 

Agree. Wish they made the X100 type camera. That would have been a big hit for Leica. I guess will have to wait for that long rumoured EVF M camera and see if it’s like the X100 series. 
 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Jeff S]

4 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

The success of the Q vs the M is that they are half the price of a M + 28mm lens and have AF. 

Actually more like a third of the price... Q2 roughly $5k vs $15k for M10 and 28 Summilux.  The Q was even less... I think $4250.

Seems a fair number of folks here carry it as a second (or backup) camera with either M or SL to cover the 28 focal length (plus for the resolution/crop-ability and weather sealing of the Q2). Leica made the combination of products easier with the adoption of similar control button interfaces.

Jeff

[Jeff S]

5 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I have a hard time seeing how they outsell the M cameras, which have always been Leica's most popular and recognizable product...is it just that they are cheaper?

 

Probably not more (post 313 guesstimate), but seemingly robust nonetheless. Some, however, do think the Q might be more successful...

https://www.macfilos.com/2020/04/28/leica-q-at-five-the-camera-they-got-right/

This article cites the female market segment as a possible contributor...

https://kristiandowling.com/blog/2019/9/30/leica-q2-professional-evaluation

Jeff

Edited February 18, 2021 by Jeff S